Originally Posted by
30west
From another thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bph320 
So let me see if I understand this. Some believe that a 757ER should be banded to a 767 while a non ER 757 should not. They also believe that a 767-400 is more like a 747-400 than a 767-300/200.
Riiiiiigghhht!!!!!
Someone, is starting to see the forest (banding of fleets) instead of the big tree (747).
Best observation on this thread so far. This isn't about 747 its just the best example since its greatly different from 767-4.In this particular band.
I'll take it a step further to help others see whats this disagreement is really about(merger cmmttes wont tip their cards). In past mergers (did some work on merger cmmte in former airline) of airlines one of the important factors arbitrators look at is how many wide-bodies(2 aisles) and how many narrow-bodies(1 aisle) does each merging airline bring. It establishes a ratio for use by the arbitrator, also usually a black and white number. But I bet Mr. Katz is throwing one out there on this deal hoping it sticks. If he can convince the arbitrators(3 this time) that since the pay is the same on (proposed CAL banding ) 747/777/767-4 and 767-2/767-3/757 etops this would greatly change the WB/NB ratio. Goes from what it really is 48 WB CAL/ 113 WB UAL to 110 WB CAL for pay/ 113+?(757 etops) WB UAL for pay. Makes the ratio much closer to even ,vastly improving CAL pilot position on SLI integration. IMHO I don't think you will get three separate arbitrators to set new precedent on this but I would have tried it also if I were on the committee.
Second, for everyone both sides UAL/CAL talking about orders/ options / Growth/ replacement aircraft, arbitrators in the last 20 years basically ignore all of that.They have included some aircraft when they were to be delivered in the very near term generally the 3-5 months out max. They go into the above mentioned ratio in there appropriate category WB/NB.
One last thing, if anyone believes pay banding is the holy grail at CAL. Why did Jay make the offer in DEN last month at the MEC's meeting "lets just get this contract with all the banding in place and on the next contract we will unband all the aircraft". He simply has a weak hand is trying to play it best he can, I would do the same, so would you.
IMHO still say in 5 years if management wants it. This will all be water under the bridge, big movement, new planes, big pay , everyone moving forward on the list quickly making more money and flying whatever you generally want to.
Cheers
30 west
30,
I've tried on a couple of threads to relay the reality of what "career expectations" are and mean in an arbitration.
Having no hard facts about what either UAL or CAL is proposing on the subject, it makes it hard to definitely determine the intent each has.
To be honest, making the 400 a single category will carve out a niche in the list that will be segregated for UAL and have obvious SLI implications whether it be weighted integration, fences, or combination of the two.
Likewise, the same could be said for CAL if their proposed banding enhances the status/expectations of a CAL pilot in the same way and therefore reduces the WB expectation claim that UAL has based on the number of aircraft on the property.
Shame we can't look at the proposals and make a true analysis.
I would expect nothing less from either side regarding doing their best for their own. That is up until the point it proves to be a negative course of action.......say all those UAX 70 seaters in CAL hubs.
While section 1 grievances receive "accelerated" processing, it not only is not truly accelerated but detracts from what should be both MEC's primary focus. Getting a contract, then merging the lists, and moving forward for the first time in a long time rather than laterally or backwards.
My 2 centavos.
Lee